|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
03.12.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The
Transport Minister has been given the job of creating order from the chaos
of Britain's railways. I'll be asking him how he's going to do it. Europe's
leaders are meeting in Nice this week. I'll be asking the Shadow Foreign
Secretary why he wants Britain to say no to the rest of Europe. And Europe's
agriculture ministers are meeting tomorrow. I'll be asking ours what he
wants to do about the spread of mad cow disease. That's after the news
read by Sion Willioms.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Europe's leaders are off
to Nice this week to find a way of making the European Union bigger - and
keep it working. Why do the Tories want to block all the changes it's said
are needed.
BSE is spreading across the
Continent. Can the politicians agree on how to stop it?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first the railways.
Every other day there's a new horror story about the state of the railways.
And there seems no end in sight to it all. Well now the government has
put the Transport Minister, Lord McDonald, in charge of a committee that
will meet regularly to sort things out. How can a politician succeed where
the railwaymen themselves have failed? Lord MacDonald is with me. Good
afternoon
.
MACDONALD: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: What's the committee
actually going to do, because it's hard to see what you can do that the
industry itself without your help, cannot do.?
MACDONALD: Well, we're simply trying to
co-ordinate, we're in there in a sense as a support group because there
is a smaller management than you would imagine in Railtrack. They're called
upon from all different angles to report to this group or that group, so
that we've done is get half a dozen of these groups round the one table
so they can share the agenda and I or the permanent secretary can sit there
and listen to the concerns that are expressed and try to get those sorted
out as smoothly as possible, in order that the Railtrack management can
get on with the job which is the rail recovery plan for the whole network
HUMPHRYS: But we seem to have seen
an awful lot of these meetings over the last months with ministers, whether
it's you or John Prescott or whoever it is there, they have emergency summits
and God knows what else. Nothing seems to get any better, indeed the on
the contrary things seem to be getting worse.
MACDONALD: Well it does get better. At
the moment we've got about I think about seventy-five per cent of the journeys
in the Inter-City routes running, and about fifty per cent of those are
coming in on time. That's a bit better than it was, and in the other areas
we've got a much higher incidence of trains running, about ninety per cent
and about seventy-five per cent arriving within ten minutes, and about
half the franchises say they're running close to normal, so it's not total
chaos everyone. There's about twenty per cent of passengers who come off
the network but it is getting better, they're lifting I think almost three
hundred speed restrictions over the next days and couple of weeks.
HUMPHRYS: Three hundred?
MACDONALD: Well, a hundred-and-forty going
up from forty to sixty, and another two hundred going up from twenty to
forty.
HUMPHRYS: So when will they all
be lifted by then?
MACDONALD: I would think about the end
of January, beginning of February, but we can't be too sure on that because
they're still in the process of discovering some of the problems in the
network. They've covered two-thirds of it, the last third is still to
be done although that's the least problematic third of it if I can put
it that way. But they reckon they've almost bottomed it out.
HUMPHRYS: But we still don't have
is a proper time-table. I mean we had one way back when. It was abandoned
when all those problems happened, Hatfield happened, all the rest of it.
We don't have a proper time-table, we don't have a real emergency time-table
to which the train operating companies are committed. They guarantee that
this is the time-table against which we can measure them. When are we
going to have that?
MACDONALD: Well, they say they have a time-table,
it's the one that will be in place until the Christmas time-table comes
in about the seventeenth or eighteenth of December, and by the
way you'll know about the Christmas time-table I think it's on Tuesday
they're announcing that, and then after the Christmas break, the New Year
break the new time-table will come in and that will be I think a lot more
efficient than the one we've got at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: So, I'm slightly puzzled
by this. Then what - because we were promised that we'd have this within
a fortnight of Hatfield weren't we and now it's what, five weeks.
MACDONALD: We were hit by flooding of course
John which didn't help.
HUMPHRYS: That was a problem, though
it wasn't everywhere. I mean it was only limited areas. Now, this time-table,
we're going to have a time-table that will come in, will be announced on
Tuesday and that'll be good until...?
MACDONALD: Well, that's the Christmas time-table
that comes in then, and the Christmas time-table runs let's see, from the
eighteenth of December to the seventh of January, and then the post-holiday
time-table comes in, and it's in on the - it'll come in - it'll be announced
on the fifth January and it will run on through January and February.
HUMPHRYS: So the one that comes
in for Christmas, the Christmas time-table as you describe it, that is
guaranteed. In other words if I try and catch a train to Manchester and
it's more than whatever it is late, according to that particular time-table,
I will be able to go for compensation they way I would have been able to
do six months ago?
MACDONALD: Indeed. If you can bear with
me I'll just give you some of the figures that I've been given by the companies
here. They reckon on the Inter-City they've got seventy-six per cent running
as normal on the present time table, the one that'll be in place up till
Christmas. Of those seventy-six about half of them are coming in within
ten minutes. The other half are more than ten minutes late. On the London
commuting and the other commuting lines and other lines around the country
it's actually much higher than that, it's over ninety per cent of trains
that are being set out as normal on the time-table and three-quarters of
those are running inside the ten minute delay.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean the problem
is that there are going to be far fewer trains aren't there. I mean this
is the difficulty, so there are going to be fewer passengers, both GNER
and Virgin say that.
MACDONALD: Well, not far fewer. Again,
what I've got.....
HUMPHRYS: GNER said less than half
the passengers they'd be able to cope with.
MACDONALD: Well, what we've got here is
eighteen-thousand three hundred trains run each day ....
HUMPHRYS: Normally you mean.
MACDONALD: Normally, and about six hundred
they tell me are being cancelled formally and then some others are being
cancelled. But ninety-five per cent of those trains are in the current
time-table as normal.
HUMPHRYS: Sorry, if a third of
them, you said eighteen hundred and then six hundred being cancelled.
A third are being cancelled, it's hard to see how they're going to carry
anything like the number of passengers that you just described.
MACDONALD: No, of the eighteen-thousand,
three hundred per day they reckon that about ninety-five percent of those
trains will be in the current timetable, the ones that we've got at the
moment. They're supposed to be working as normal. Those trains are supposed
to be leaving the station but what I'm saying is that on the Intercity
lines only half of them are arriving within ten minutes of when they should
but it's a much better record than on some of the commuter lines and other
lines around the country.
HUMPHRYS: On the other hand that
leaves the other half which could be absolute mayhem couldn't it. I mean
there are no promises are there.....
MACDONALD: Well of those eighteen-thousand,
three hundred I'm told that the number that are over thirty-eight minutes
late per day are about five hundred. So it's about three per cent. It's
not as much as the overall chaos, no progress being made headlines would
suggest.
HUMPHRYS: Well yes but if you're
planning to travel over Christmas it still sounds a bit dodgy doesn't it.
I mean you hear 'post early for Christmas' you might as well say, 'travel
early for Christmas' or 'Don't travel for Christmas. Stay at home for
Christmas'?
MACDONALD: Well obviously a lot of people
have stayed at home. One of the curious things that's happened here is
that they reckon about twenty per cent of people who would normally travel
on the rail haven't travelled and there's about two point seven million
travel every day so you're probably losing something between a quarter
of a million and half a million people not going by rail. But if you look
at the number of cars in the country, there's twenty-seven million cars,
two point seven million people go by train each day, looks as though people
aren't making journeys or they're hitching a lift in a car or they're maybe
taking a 'bus. So what we've got as the Highways Agency this weekend has
said there's only a one or two percent increase on the amount of traffic
on our roads.....
HUMPHRYS: It can make a huge difference
though can't it - one or two per cent?
MACDONALD: It can. But remember the headlines
in the paper said "Twenty-five per cent...up in London. Ten per cent....."
HUMPHRYS: It might be in London
for all we know because if it was two per cent across the country it could
be anything in London couldn't it.
MACDONALD: As well as the Highways Agency
we've actually got one hundred and sixty sites across the country where
we look at traffic volumes and they don't show anything more than a couple
of percentage increase and then the London Underground, where you would
expect people to go obviously in the London commuting lines, the increase
between September when Hatfield happened and this month is actually no
greater this year than it was last year. So it's a bit counter intuitive,
I know it goes against the received wisdom but I don't think there is this
gridlock that the newspapers have been saying across the country.
HUMPHRYS: But the problem is, isn't
it, from your point of view, you've now... some people might say you've
been a bit of a fall guy in this because you've been put in charge of this
committee and you have these meetings. We were told at one stage you were
going to be meeting them every single morning and cracking the whip and
all the rest of it. If things don't get hugely better, and you can't absolutely
guarantee that they're going to get hugely better, it's all going to look
like a bit of a PR stunt isn't it?
MACDONALD: Well it's not. Really it's
a group to try and build confidence by getting everybody around the table.
You'll have heard Sir Alistair Moreton who is the Chairman of the Strategic
Rail Authority say that the industry had got a bit spooked, especially
Railtrack, they'd lost confidence and that was why they'd perhaps over
reacted and that's certainly the feeling of the train operating companies.
So what I'm trying to do is......
HUMPHRYS: Over reacted by putting
on too many speed restrictions....?
MACDONALD: Putting on too many speed limits.
It's understandable because the people working on the line are probably
saying - 'If I'm making a mistake here, if I'm not being cautious enough,
could I end up causing another Hatfield? Could I end up perhaps having
legal action taken against me?' So we've got to try and make sure that
the Health and Safety Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Rail
Regulator, the passengers' councils, they all sit round the same table
with us. It won't need to be every day. It'll be as required. Railtrack
were standing shoulder to shoulder with me on Friday saying 'This is helping
us' because it is supposed to help build confidence and their ability to
make serious decisions and the Health and Safety executive have been working
closely with Railtrack, it came over in our meetings and it's helped lift
some of the speed restrictions and speed things up.
HUMPHRYS: Talk about being spooked,
it may be that you guys are getting a wee bit spooked at the moment aren't
you because people will blame you. I mean the way you have now taken responsibility
with this whole thing. If things don't improve really seriously, drastically
between now and next May or whenever the election is, you'll cop the blame
for it won't you?
MACDONALD: Well the amount of frustration
amongst passengers is huge and understandable and I believe the service
they're getting is unacceptable and that's why you've got to have a government
involvement. We believe that with the transport bill that became an act
just last week there that if we put more powers in place it will be a more
co-ordinated, more coherent network. We've also put a lot more money in
place. There's sixty billion going in over the next ten years. So the
money's there. The structures are there. What we need now are competent
management of the network and to reduce a lot of the problems and Alistair
Moreton has been working with other groups to try and reduce the frictions
that have been in a system we inherited which is overly fragmented, incoherent
and not working.
HUMPHRYS: Ah well, yes. But that's
the point, isn't it? Incoherent, fragmented, not working. But this is
something that you are not going to change. I mean, the structure of the
network, as far as one can tell, unless you can tell me differently this
morning, the structure of the network, this extraordinary number of train
operating companies, Railtrack, all those different people who service,
look after the railway lines, the network and all the rest of it, all of
that, as far as one can tell is going to stay the same. Maybe what you
ought to be doing, instead of going off to these meetings with Railtrack,
is sitting down and working out a new structure for the whole railway system.
MACDONALD: Well the, what the railway system
has lacked has been investment, certainly over the last twenty years, as
you know, Mrs Thatcher had actually an ideological aversion to the railways,
she...
HUMPHRYS: ...ah but it's more than
that, it's more than that...
BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER
HUMPHRYS: ...it's the way they
were privatised that you so strongly criticised, you've just done it again
now, and quite right too. A lot of people will say, if it was wrong, what
they did, what the last government, if that was so wrong, why are you not
saying, right, let's have another look at it and do something differently.
Clearly it isn't working.
MACDONALD: Because we've strengthened the
powers of the rail regulator, we've brought in a strategic rail authority,
and most important of all, we are making sixty billion available, because
the industry has lacked investment for a very long time. I won't blame
just the Tories in the last twenty years, it's lacked investment for the
last fifty years. Now, we're doing something about that, but we want that
money to be spent quickly and efficiently. And that's the job now. So...
HUMPHRYS: ...yes but, how can it
be? This is the point I'm making. If you have a structure that doesn't
work, if by your own definition this thing is incoherent and doesn't work,
throwing money at it is not necessarily going to solve it. Why do you
seem to be so scared of saying..., you've said, it's a mess, effectively,
this thing is a mess. We'd have never done it like this. Why therefore
do you not say, so let's do it differently, alright, there'll be a bit
of upheaval, but let's do it differently.
MACDONALD: Now we are doing it differently,
we've got Alastair Morton and the Strategic Rail Authority...
HUMPHRYS: ...a body of bureaucrats,
that's all.
MACDONALD: No, the re-franchising and the
twenty-five different franchises on the, the network, we're putting the
money into Railtrack, much tougher regulation, better scrutiny of where
the public money is and how it's being used. The alternative John, would
be years of upheaval and that's not what the industry needs. We believe
we can bring coherence where there's been fragmentation, we can bring investment
where there's been neglect.
HUMPHRYS: Well, alright. You're
not going to do that. And yet here you are, you mentioned London Underground
earlier, here you are. You've looked at the mess that the railway network
is in. You're now looking at London Underground and you're saying, we're
going to impose the same structure on London Underground that was responsible
for this almighty mess on the railway network. Why? When everybody says
it's gonna be a complete shambles, even worse many people say. Why do
it?
MACDONALD: No. Well, we're not doing that.
What we're doing is leaving the operation of London Underground and the
control of safety in the public sector. What we are trying to do is to
ensure that private sector expertise and disciplines are brought in for
the maintenance and renewal of, of the track and systems.
HUMPHRYS: Separating the operators
and the track, exactly what happened in the railways and exactly the problems
that we have there.
MACDONALD: But in a very different way
from the railways, and we believe that that will put in again, investment
in very, very large quantities. We're looking at investment of about thirteen
billion going into the London Tube. Again, infrastructure there's been
very neglected. What we're trying to do is with eighteen years of neglect,
with the kind of stable economy we've got at the moment is to get investment
into the infrastructure in Britain, not just Health and Education, but
in Transport in particular. And the remarkable thing is that in the polls,
despite all the problems of, of recent times, the majority of people still
say, it was the fault of the previous government of what they did to the
railways.
HUMPHRYS: Well, we'll see what
happens. Lord MacDonald, thank you very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: Now the leaders of the European
Union are meeting in Nice at the end of the week for a summit which is
meant to pave the way for other countries to join the Union, thirteen altogether.
Everybody says enlargement is a good idea. But then everybody knows that
it can't happen unless Europe overhauls the way it operates. It's bad
enough already. The machinery would simply seize up, they say, without
some big changes, specifically getting countries to agree that more decisions
should be taken by majority voting, rather than one country being able
to stop everything by using a veto. As Paola Buonadonna reports, that's
not going to be easy, especially for Britain.
PAOLA BUONADONNA: Before they left they called
themselves the Magnificent Seven - on a mission to the East....destination
Bratislava.
In the end only three made - it, just as in the film. The others taken
out, not by bandits, but by a difficult vote at Westminster. The Minister
for Europe, Keith Vaz, says Britain will do all it can to welcome new members
into the European Union.
But courtesy visits will not by themselves speed up enlargement - the
future of the whole project is in the balance at next week's summit of
EU leaders, during which essential reforms have to be agreed. The Labour
Government will be under pressure from the Conservatives to say no, while
the rest of Europe will push it to compromise to achieve its goal of a
wider Union.
KEITH VAZ, MP: Enlargement is the key,
that's why the Nice agenda is so important. Without Nice being successful
we cannot enlarge.
DICK BENSCHOP: If fifteen Prime Ministers
come in with the idea 'I can do nothing', where do we end up then? And
that's what everybody has to consider. We really want enlargement of the
European Union.
MENZIES CAMPBELL MP: In spite of the rhetoric,
there's always been the feeling that Britain has not really signed up for
the project, and one of the things Mr Blair can achieve at Nice is to demonstrate
that the rhetoric is supported by a real commitment to ensuring that the
Treaty of Nice contains the provisions necessary for enlargement.
PAOLA BUONADONNA: This trip to Slovakia kicks off
a series of visits by British ministers to Eastern European. The government
has made progress selling the idea of a co-operative Britain to Europe.
But it hasn't been quite as successful selling Europe to Britain. Tony
Blair had hoped his rapid reaction force initiative would show Britain
leading in Europe. But stung by criticism of it, that it is a European
army - he was forced to downplay it.
Britain needs the Nice summit to be a success - but whatever Tony Blair
agrees to will be portrayed as accepting further European integration -
and he could be forced on the defensive again.
VAZ: I don't think we're
being defensive. I'm quite happy to come out kicking for Europe because
I believe that, this country is stronger in Europe and Europe is stronger
because Britain is there. I don't think it's defensive at all. We are
restating a policy that we've had for the last three-and-a-half years,
that this government is pro-Europe and pro-reform.
CAMPBELL: The government is paying
the penalty for it's failure since nineteen-ninety-seven to put the European
case sufficiently positively. The events of the last two weeks or so,
demonstrate that the government has failed to persuade public opinion in
this country sufficiently.
BUONADONNA: The EU says the aim of the
Nice summit is to reform its institutions and decision-making to make them
more efficient and able to cope with as many as thirteen new members.
Larger countries are willing to give up one of their two commissioners,
provided the smaller countries allow them the votes in the council of ministers,
which would more accurately reflect the size of their population. But
the most intimidating issue for Britain is giving up the national veto.
Most of the fifteen countries of the EU and the Commission want more decisions
to be taken by Qualified Majority Voting or QMV, meaning no one country
can hold up agreement. Already eighty per cent of EU decisions are taken
like this, but now France, which currently has the presidency, has tabled
a further fifty items where the veto could be lost. The Conservatives
say they're against any loss of the veto but the Government is only ruling
out further QMV in six key areas.
VAZ: The Conservative party
when it was in government, when Mr Maude signed the Maastricht Treaty,
accepted Qualified Majority Voting in thirty new areas. Combined with
the Single European Act it reached a total of forty-two extensions under
the last government.
We will only agree to it when it's in the interest of our country. That
means that we have those areas that we will not move on, such as tax, social
security, border controls, treaty changes and other areas, such as the
European Court of Justice, where we made it clear that QMV would be good.
BUONADONNA: Sir Stephen Wall, Tony Blair's
Chief EU Policy Co-ordinator and the Dutch Europe Minister Dick Benschop,
agree on the need to streamline the European Union. But the Netherlands,
together with most other member states, will put pressure on the British
Government to agree on QMV in some aspects of taxation.
BENSCHOP: On the tax issue you
run into questions of competition and fair and unfair competition, within
Europe, especially in the single market where we all take part in, so,
on the exchange of information, on helping each other combating fraud,
it would be very good to have a more easy way of making decisions through
Qualified Majority Voting. But on the essential aspects of, of income
taxation, on rates, and tariffs, that's a national question, and that remains
with unanimity, also for the Netherlands.
VAZ: Germany has it's own
red line areas, where they're not prepared to give up the veto. France
has it, in terms of external trade, so this is not just the United Kingdom,
every single member of the European Union, every member state, has those
areas where it is not prepared to move to Qualified Majority Voting, and
they will fight tooth and nail, to make sure that happens. And Tony Blair
and Robin Cook, will fight tooth and nail to make sure we act in Britain's
interests.
BENSCHOP: If nothing would happen
on the fiscal aspect, I hope London would seriously consider other aspects
as well, because if everybody is starting to block one or two items, then
nothing will happen. And that's not tolerable.
BUONADONNA: The city of Nice is still largely
oblivious to the political drama about to unfold. The French Presidency
had hoped the summit would give Europe a new lease of life, but with so
many conflicting interests at stake, the reforms could be deadlocked.
There are going to be battles over further QMV in the six big areas but
outside these, the UK will give some ground.
Next weekend here in Nice the British government looks set to accept the
loss of the national veto in as many as twenty-seven new areas. Although
many of the topics are about appointments and rules of procedure, any
agreement on Qualified Majority Voting will be seen as a 'concession' to
Europe by the Conservatives and sections of the media.
PIERRE LELLOUCHE:; There is a problem of political
leadership in England, because the Conservative party, unfortunately, and
I say this as a sort of sister party to the Conservatives, the British
Conservatives, and I told Mr Hague, and his colleagues I find it very sad
to see the British Conservative party, espousing the cause of the anti-European
cause. I think it's deadly and suicidal. And that of course makes it
very hard for Blair to argue the case for Europe. And he's less and less
convincing when he does it, and if he does it, because he's extremely discreet
about it. I think, of the last half-dozen speeches he gave on Europe,
only one was pronounced in England, the rest was given abroad. You, you
cannot move forward if you don't explain to people what's going on here.
BUONADONNA: And there's another problem
for the government. France and almost all the other member states are determined
to make it easier for smaller groups of countries to push ahead with integration
even when other EU members don't want to participate - in jargon this is
known as enhanced co-operation. Tony Blair has been resisting this - worried
that it could lead to a two-speed Europe with Britain in the slow lane.
It was in nineteen-ninety-seven at the Amsterdam summit that the concept
of enhanced co-operation first surfaced. At Nice governments are likely
to agree that no one country can prevent others moving ahead together.
It looks as if Britain is willing to accept the loss of its veto on this
matter, despite suggestions that enhanced co-operation could be used as
a threat to leave the dissenters behind.
BENSCHOP: Enhanced co-operation
might have a preventive aspect, so to speak, if countries know that, and
they stand in the way of a sensible compromise that the others might move
along, but I won't use it as an instrument of blackmail in the normal decision-making
procedure, that's not how we work together. But it is an element which
we need in the future union, if there would really, really be a stale-mate
and we would, we would have to move beyond that, then it can be used.
VAZ: I have often asked,
even my good friend Dick Benschop, what kinds of things would you use enhanced
co-operation for. And as yet, those who have supported it, have not come
up with a coherent answer. They say there are cases and they talk about
it as being the last resort, but I think that we're happy to have this
discussion. We're happy to see whether it will help us do business properly
on behalf of Europe, but we will not allow a two-speed Europe to be created.
Tony Blair has made this very clear.
BUONADONNA: Along with France, the UK is
already part of an early example of enhanced co-operation, the rapid reaction
defence force. But Britain has refused to go along with another example,
the Single Currency. The French argue that it's up to each country to decide
what speed it wants to travel at.
LELLOUCHE: Mr Blair is in the driving engine
for defence, so he know, he knows it's a two-speed Europe, except that
he's in the first speed on defence. He doesn't want to be in the second
speed on currency, but if he's not on the, on the currency, it's his choice.
BUONADONNA: Whatever's agreed at Nice will
put in a new treaty which all the leaders will sign early next year. But
it will still have to be ratified by the British Parliament. The Government
might choose to postpone introducing legislation until after the General
Election. But it can't stop the Conservative Party making Europe a key
election issue.
CAMPBELL: If the Labour Government
is defensive about the Treaty of Nice, then it will create circumstances
in which the European issue will be used to the government's disadvantage,
indeed to the disadvantage of all pro-European parties in the forthcoming
general election. The Government must get on to the front foot.
VAZ: We're quite prepared
to stand up and put the facts before the people. What we will not allow
to happen any more, is that the myths will be able to go unchallenged.
It's time we dealt with these myths. It just so happens to come now,
but ministers over the last three-and-a-half years have been fully engaged
with what's happening in Europe.
BUONADONNA: As the three gallant British
ministers, led by Keith Vaz, brazened their way around Bratislava, they
were left in no doubt about Slovakia's desire to join the EU. But as
they prepared to ride out of town, they knew the Conservatives would be
lying in ambush back home. Both the government and the opposition are
committed to enlargement, but the Conservatives are determined to exploit
any concessions made to achieve that goal.
HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonadonna reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, enlargement
is a matter of principle as far as the Conservative Party is concerned.
That's the case isn't it? And you want it to happen sooner rather than
later?
FRANCIS MAUDE: Yes, absolutely. We've
been urging this very strongly for years and we think it's really important.
This is a divide which has disfigured the European continent now for fifty
years. I remember back in nineteen-ninety we were saying to the countries
of central and eastern Europe, you should be able to join the European
Union in five years. Now ten years on they're complaining, we're saying
to them it's still five years on.
HUMPHRYS: In that case one has
to wonder about your attitude to what's going on in Nice this week, because
your policies are positively self-defeating. The policies that you're
adopting would make it impossible for that enlargement to happen. These
reforms that you're opposing must happen in order for that enlargement
to take place.
MAUDE: No. Simply not the case.
That's what's being peddled. That's the myth that's being peddled at
the moment, but it is simply isn't true. None of this is about, with the
exception of a couple of things which we would support, can be said to
be about enlargement. The thing which is most damaging to the spirit of
European unity, which is the proposal to get rid of the veto in a whole
lot more areas is nothing to do with enlargement at all. It's actually
to do with - nakedly to do with the programme of political integration
- driving the politics of Europe much more closely together by force rather
than by co-operation. It's not to do with enlargement.
HUMPHRYS: But you're not opposed
to getting rid of vetoes as a matter of principle. Again, are you - qualified
majority voting as it's called, more qualified majority voting, you're
not opposed to that in principle are you?
MAUDE: Well no. But we are saying
that at this stage the - it's the wrong thing for Europe to be doing.
As a part of our relentless one-way street towards ever closer political
integration it is actually something that will cause division and discord
in Europe and that's why we say that is the wrong thing to be doing. Extending
the areas where the majority can enforce, can impose their will on the
minority is just the wrong thing to do. It will actually be divisive not
unifying.
HUMPHRYS: Well, it's funny how
you've changed you mind on that, because it's not that long ago back at
Maastricht you supported thirty changes towards QNV from the veto.
MAUDE: Well, it is quite a long
time ago actually. It's eight years ago, and Europe.......
HUMPHRYS: Well, what's changed
in that time?
MAUDE: Well, the shape of Europe
is very different now and the tenor of public opinion is very different,
and in any event I do have to reject this notion that because one's agreed
a lot of qualified majority voting up till now, therefore you must be in
favour of it continuing ever further. It's like saying, you know, you've
walked to the end of the pier it must therefore make sense to carry on
walking. Of course it can't be right. The fact is that it's the wrong
thing for Europe to be doing, and you know, some of these areas are matters
of great concern. It is in fact my experience with the Maastricht Treaty
that makes me of all people particularly concerned about this endless process
of further integration because I've seen how some things which in the eighties
and the early nineties we agreed to in the best of good faith have turned
out with hindsight to have been over-interpreted by the European courts
and the European competencies have been extended further and further well
beyond what we envisaged when we signed these things, and that does make
me and a lot of other people very cautious indeed about proceeding any
further.
HUMPHRYS: Well, yes that is interesting
because at first sight at any rate many of the things that you are now
opposing are the sorts of things that you approved of at Maastricht.
MAUDE: Well, that is exactly my
point, that a lot of these things have been used to extend the powers of
the European Union into areas that weren't envisaged.
HUMPHRYS: So you were na�ve in
Maastricht were you. I mean you got it wrong?
MAUDE: Well, I wouldn't say we'd
got it wrong but perhaps we were na�ve. Perhaps we were na�ve when we
signed the Single European Act, when we accepted all the assurances that
these were going to be limited competencies which the European Commission
and then the European Court of Justice has steadily extended, and so I
think perhaps we are a little concerned that Britain doesn't go down the
same path again.
HUMPHRYS: Let me give you an example
of the sorts of things that are up for qualified majority voting, that
are being considered for qualified majority voting at Nice. Changing the
rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors. Now complex stuff obviously,
but hardly life-threatening. You're not opposed to that are you?
MAUDE: Well, you wouldn't say that
that's life-threatening in itself, of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't
say that that's the end of the world if that happens. But there is a general
concern here that all of this agenda goes in one direction, in the direction
of further political integration and I make again the general point that
if there was a balanced agenda here with some areas being decided, discussed,
being apt for more decision-taking being made by the member states, but
some other things, the veto might be considered for being got rid of, then
I would be much more relaxed about it, because it would be a balanced agenda.
This is not a balanced agenda. This is actually all about relentless
political integration, and I'll give you just one example of that. If
this summit, if this treaty was genuinely about enabling enlargement to
happen then there would be one big item on the agenda which isn't there
at all, and that's reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. That is what's
actually holding up enlargement. It's a massive road block on the path
to enlargement. Tony Blair has said he's very much in favour of reforming
it but has he got that on the agenda for Nice, to really enable enlargement
to happen? He hasn't even asked for it to be on the agenda.
HUMPHRYS: There wouldn't be a lot
of point. There wouldn't be a lot of point as far as that one is concerned
because without qualified majority voting you'd get absolutely nothing.
We've seen over and over again - why forecast what has happened when you
can look in the history book. I mean there is no point in even trying
it without dropping vetoes on that particular one.
MAUDE: Well there isn't any proposal
to drop the veto on that one. There's no proposal that it should happen.
HUMPHRYS: So would you say yes
to that?
If that were proposed, would you say yes let's abandon our veto, let's
lose our veto on that particular area if it were proposed?
MAUDE: Well there already is a
lot of qualified majority voting in relation to agriculture. I mean the
idea that this is all unanimity is simply not the case but let's be clear
about it, if there was a general will, a real determination, a political
will to seize the destiny that European enlargement offers then countries
would be ready to tackle the difficulties that lie with agricultural reform.
But actually what I sense, everywhere I go round Europe is that the imperative
to go for enlargement is weakening. There's a growing sense of resentment
and betrayal in the countries of the east of Europe and Central Europe,
people who say, 'well hang on... we've been lead on, we've been encouraged
to reform on the basis that there was this prize if you like of European
Union membership coming up soon at the end of it and now it's constantly
being pushed back. It's always five years ahead.' And I think now's the
time, I think if Tony Blair is really ready to be a leader in Europe he
would actually be insisting that our partners face this and those who aren't
prepared to embrace the changes that are needed, especially the changes
to the Common Agricultural Policy that are needed to enable enlargement
to happen, that they shouldn't actually carry the blame for it. I find
it a bit hard that the Conservative Party in opposition is being accused
as being the barrier to enlargement when all we're doing is saying that
enlargement doesn't require relentless political integration. What enlargement
requires is more flexibility. It requires a looser, more modern European
Union of the type we've been advocating for some time.
HUMPHRYS: But you're making it
impossible by objecting to really very, or at least on the face of it,
very trivial issues for anything to happen, for anything to change in that
direction. Whatever way you go you're going to be stuck because of this
veto and I mean you'll accept it, you'll accept losing the veto on relatively
big areas, very big areas indeed like agriculture, but you're putting the
block or would like to put a block on many more smaller things. It seems
odd.
MAUDE: Yes but actually just to
take your argument back to where you started John, the idea that having
a veto on changes to the rules for the European Court of Auditors, the
idea that that's necessary to enable enlargement to happen is simply absurd....
(talking together) ...to see how absurd it is.
HUMPHRYS: It's a matter of getting
the business done isn't it, that's the point. And if you have an endless
series of veto's you can't get business done and then you cannot extend
the Union. This is the argument: It would just simply be impossible.
The whole thing would run into the sand.
MAUDE: Well I understand the argument.
I think it's wrong for this reason: That's what's being said is that
it's very difficult to get all of these decisions taken through the mincing
machine. The mincing machine keeps bunging up. The right answer to that
is not to put, as it were, a more powerful engine on the mincing machine
and make it go faster and just grind everything up more quickly, the answer
is to try and put a bit less into the mincing machine in the first place
so there are fewer decisions that the European Union should be taking.
There are more decisions that should be taken by the member states, that's
actually what most people in this country want. That's the mainstream
majority of the public in this country want to see that kind of European
Union. And it's also.... can I just make this point because I think it's
important. It's also the kind of European Union the modern world requires.
We're moving into a new age, a network world where physical geography
matters less, where much more is going to be done by networks and where
there'll be a real premium on flexibility. It's absurd for the European
Union to be committing itself to ever more rigidity to this sort of outdated
dogma of one size fits all integration when the world requires something
more modern and more flexible.
HUMPHRYS: Ah well, that's exactly
the point I wanted to raise with you, because you are very much in support
of the much more flexible Europe, so that if one group of countries, or
one country, wants to move ahead of the others then they should be allowed
to do so, and if Britain said alright, we'll stay out of EMU or whatever
it happens to be, we can do so. In practice though, you would make that
more difficult, if not impossible because you want to keep a veto which
would allow one country to stop the other countries moving ahead, so again,
you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
MAUDE: No, we're not, in fact our
view of this is that we are very relaxed indeed about other countries'
going ahead with deeper integration amongst themselves if that's what they
want to do. It's not something that we would want to do, nor something
the majority of the public here would want to see happen. But we don't
froth at the mouth about it and get anxious about it, we do however say
that Britain should have a right of veto over it, even if we say, as I
absolutely clearly do, that we would not expect to be exercising that veto.
You need to be absolutely sure that such a process of integration can't
be used to damage Britain's interest, I'd find it hard to envisage circumstances
where it might, but you can imagine circumstances, and we should retain
the veto against that eventuality.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you've been able...
MAUDE: ...but the other point is
this, the other argument is this, that you shouldn't give up that veto
without there being some significant changes in return for it, some significant
moves towards the kind of modern, multi-systems, more flexible European
Union, that we are arguing for.
HUMPHRYS: Your difficulty with
this whole Europe issue, which is supposed to be your strong suit, I mean,
if one of the things that, that you will be using in the General Election
campaign to prove to the people of this country that you've got a better
plan for Britain than the Labour party, but you're being undermined all
the time, aren't you, by the sorts of things that we see happening within
your own party, still see happening with your own party: people back-biting,
briefing against each other, the kind of thing we've seen this last week,
I discovered in one of the newspapers, the Times I think, it was only on
Friday the sorts of things that you were going to be telling me today,
I didn't know about, I didn't know I was going to ask you questions about.
Somebody's been briefing against you. It's damaging for you, isn't it?
You've got to stop it, haven't you?
MAUDE: Yes we have. Absolutely
have. We have to recognise that, you know, the Conservative Party doesn't
belong to any of us who are in it, it actually belongs to the nation.
It's the longest standing, most successful, political party in the history
of democracy, and we have been that, and we can be that, because we belong
to the country, we exist to serve the nation, not to serve any individuals
within the party, and we have a duty, actually, to get ourselves seriously
together to campaign vigorously for what we believe in, which I believe
is what the majority of the public believe in, and to make that case vigorously
we cannot let the case against this government go by default, nor the case
for the kind of values for which we speak, which are deep values of this
country, go by default. We've got to get ourselves absolutely together,
fight with each other against Labour for what we believe in.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, thank
you very much indeed.
MAUDE: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: I was talking to Mr Maude
a little bit earlier this morning.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Agriculture Minister
Nick Brown is going to Brussels tomorrow for a meeting with other European
ministers to decide what to do about BSE, mad cow disease. It's now affecting
the whole of Europe ... not just us. The question they're facing is whether
to bring in the sort of controls that we've seen in this country... or
go even further.
On Wednesday there was a
meeting of the European Veterinary Scientific Committee which discussed
a ban on including fish meal and bits of chickens in animal feed. British
vets at the meeting opposed the ban. So what happens now? Mr Brown is
with me - good afternoon Mr Brown.
BROWN: I think I should make it
clear that British vets ONLY opposed the ban because the Commission asked
us to so that the issue could be dealt with by ministers rather than at
the Veterinary Committee. It's not a policy decision.
HUMPHRYS: So they didn't look at
the science of it, which was my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong,
they looked at the science of it and thought independently of whatever
they had or might not have been asked to do - but this wasn't the right
thing to do, to oppose this ban?
BROWN: No, that isn't what happened.
It's purely a technical decision so that the issue can be dealt with by
ministers on Monday rather than be dealt within the Veterinary Committee.
That was the only reason and they did it at the Commission's request.
HUMPHRYS: Do we not know what their
view is then on this one?
BROWN: Yes we do and in fact we're
supporting the Commission.....
HUMPHRYS: No... no... I mean the
view of the scientists.
BROWN: The view at the Veterinary
Committee was that the Commission are right to be extending the controls,
controls remember that we've had in place here since 1996 to the rest of
the European Union but the Commission believe, and I think our own veterinary
officials were right on this, that the decision should be made by ministers
not in an administrative sub-committee of the European Union, albeit a
very important one.
HUMPHRYS: So what is our view?
BROWN: Our view is that we support
the Commission's call for measures across the European Union. Remember
we're trying to do two things: Above all we're trying to protect the
public, the European Union's public from variant Creutzfeld Jacob's Disease.
We're trying to prevent the spread of BSE in European Union herds and
thirdly, and this point often gets overlooked but it's of fundamental importance,
we're trying not only to exterminate BSE but to prevent a recurrence.
HUMPHRYS: So in practical terms
what will change as a result of tomorrow's decision? I mean I'm assuming
that tomorrow's decision from what you're telling me is more or less a
fait accompli. I mean that is it: The Commission says 'do it - it will
be done' because you'll agree with what the Commission says
BROWN: A majority of member states
are in favour of the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals. Although
there may be some discussion around the details, essentially the Commission
are taking actions that are very similar although admittedly not identical
to the ones that were taken here back in nineteen ninety-six. It's a feed
stuffs ban in other words. The feed stuffs no longer contain, will be
allowed to contain not just.... It's not just a ruminant feed ban, they're
also proposing an exclusion of fish meal, the exclusion of protein derived
from poultry as well and that's a very significant decision and allied
to their proposals for a thirty month scheme, not quite the same as the
one we have here - that all animals are either tested if they're over thirty
months for BSE or they are kept out of the food chain is the proposal,
and of course any animal that fails the test will be kept out of the food
chain, and these are pretty powerful measures.
HUMPHRYS: And don't they go a bit
beyond what we're doing at the moment, because at the moment, am I not
right in thinking, farmers can if they wish feed cows, talking particularly
about ruminants talking about cows, stuff like fish meal and meal that
you get from grinding up chickens even chicken feathers I gather. At the
moment they can do that.
BROWN: You're right, the poultry
derived protein and fish meal derived protein is still used in animal feed
stuffs here, that's still lawful just as it's lawful at the moment throughout
the European Union. The Commission's proposal is not to do that: In other
words they're going beyond the scientific advice available to ministers
and clearly that's something we want to explore with them tomorrow. But
if it comes down to going... to having to going further than the scientists
advise or not doing anything at all I can tell you that Britain will be
voting to go further.
HUMPHRYS: To go further. So in
other words even though the scientists may say 'we think it's okay to feed
bits of fish and bits of chickens to cows,' you, on behalf of Britain
would say, 'We don't. We do not want to do that.'?
BROWN: Look, I want to listen to
what my colleagues have to say. I think it is absolutely right that we
try and get a decision, a single decision that will work for the whole
of the European Union, but if it's a choice between taking action or not
taking action then we're going to take action and do so on Monday.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So to be quite
clear about this, it's your view as Agriculture Minister of this country,
it's your view that it is not generally a good idea to feed bits of meat
of any sort, whether we're talking fish or chicken or whatever it is to
cows, that would normally not eat it in other words?
BROWN: I mean actually you're right
- that probably is the underpinning principle behind the Commission's proposal
but it goes further than the science and I've said repeatedly that the
decisions that our government makes in this area will be based on the science
but this is a discussion amongst colleagues in the European Union and if
the other member states wish to take the Commission's proposal as it is
without amendment then we will too - even if it goes further than the science,
strictly speaking.
HUMPHRYS: Why, why are you so hung
up on what the scientists say. I mean, you might say well it's the only
guide we've got. But if you look at a wee bit of history, you don't have
to go back terribly far, we discovered that actually, a lot of the things
that the scientists said we could do, we should never have done.
BROWN: Well, I mean, I have the
Phillips Report now to guide me in all of this and one of the points that
Lord Phillips makes in his report is that politicians can't shuffle off
their responsibilities. He uses more elegant language than that, but that
what he means by calling for yet another scientific enquiry, or waiting
until the science is certain, and that is why I say if it's a choice between
going further than the scientific advice or making no decision, then we
will have to go further than the scientific advise. It is essential that
we bear down on BSE in the European herd, it is essential that we protect
European citizens from the horrors of Variant Creutzfeld Jacobs disease
and I am determined to do that.
HUMPHRYS: How much of this is to
do with, putting aside the science for the moment, with simply restoring
public confidence, because there's no doubt, public confidence has been
absolutely shattered.
BROWN: Well, I think one of the
thinkings behind the introduction of the thirty months scheme is to deal
with the impact that the loss of public confidence has had on the market-place
in the European Union, in other words, animals that are not particularly
the older animals, that are just not being purchased, will be able to go
into the scheme, and frankly, that's a market intervention.
HUMPHRYS: Some of the blame in
this whole area, and I mean there has been blame flying around in all directions,
has been directed at us, from the French in particular, for exporting what
they regard as dodgy animal feed. Are they right to blame us?
BROWN: Well, it is true that animal
feed that was banned for sale in Britain was still allowed to be sold abroad
and some of it was purchased in France. But the people who purchased it
would have known that it was banned for sale here, I think looking back
on it, that the, that the government was wrong to allow that to happen,
and indeed the Phillips Report sets out the circumstances. But, frankly,
looking from nation state to nation state for other countries to blame
is not the right way to deal with this.
HUMPHRYS: No, but it ....
BROWN: ...there isn't a nationalistic
solution to the problems of BSE, the prion protein doesn't know national
boundaries. What we've got to do is to make sure that we've got thorough
public protection measures, and separately, thorough animal protection
measures, in place, throughout the European Union, and that's what we're
setting out to do.
HUMPHRYS: But it has, but it has
come down to a nationalistic thing, hasn't it? I mean, it frequently does
where France and this country are concerned. I mean, they are still refusing
to lift their ban on our beef. Well, when you look at the sort of things
we've just been talking about, it's quite easy to understand why they want
to do that, isn't it?
BROWN: No, the date-based export
scheme is for under thirty month beef, it's de-boned, er, it has been inspected
by just about every veterinary official that has wanted to come and inspect
it, we are being completely open about the way in which we are operating
it. It has been approved unanimously by the scientific committee that
advises the European Union, the Council of Ministers have said that it's
well-founded in law, and that it is right to lift the ban, so the French
are wrong on the science and wrong on the law. They ought to lift their
ban.
HUMPHRYS: Well if, well if, if
they won't accept our assurances that our beef is safe...
BROWN: ...this isn't our assurance...
HUMPHRYS: ...well alright no...
BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER
BROWN: ...it's the European Union's
Assurance...
HUMPHRYS: ...withdraw the word
'our'...
BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER
BROWN: ...I mean on the one hand
they're protesting like mad...
HUMPHRYS: ...yeah...
BROWN: ...that other countries
are taking national measures against France...
HUMPHRYS: ...okay...
BROWN: ...and yet, and yet they've
gone ahead and taken national measures against us.
HUMPHRYS: Well, given that, given
that they won't accept the assurances that our beef is safe, why do we
accept their assurances that their beef is safe?
BROWN: Now, we know, we know the
instance of BSE currently in France is at very low level, that is why we
are discussing across the European Union what public protection measures
it is necessary to put in place across the European Union to safeguard
the European Union's herds and at the same time to safeguard the public.
But remember we already have very powerful public protection measures
in place in this country and specifically of course the fact that it is
unlawful to sell any beef derived from animals over thirty months, whether
from France, or from Ireland, or from within the UK or anywhere else...
HUMPHRYS: ...but your colleague...
BROWN: ...in the European Union...
HUMPHRYS: But your colleague in
France, the French minister Mr de Glavany doesn't seem to think so He
said what was it: "Conduct the same test to your cattle as we're conducting
to ours, after that we shall see".
BROWN: Well the testing regime
of course will apply throughout the European Union including here. What
it won't apply to is to animals that are over thirty months, although we
do test some for experimental purposes we're not going to test every single
animal that is destined for the incinerator. They are - none of them go
into the food chain. That is why it's such a powerful public protection
measure, but in terms of the testing regime we have an extensive testing
regime for the purposes of seeing how far BSE had spread in the ageing
herd in place now, and as I said to the French on a number of occasions,
we're more than happy to share the fruits of our testing regime with them
and with anyone else
HUMPHRYS: The trouble is from your
point of view and from our point of view it isn't just the French who are
worried about it is it. I mean the French have their ban certainly but
we're seeing an increasing number of politicians in Germany, the lenders
and now the regions in Germany are now saying to the German government,
the federal government, look, we need this EU-wide ban on British beef
reinstated. I mean that's going to be a problem for you.
BROWN: I know politicians in this
country who take the same nationalistic view. Listen to William Hague
and Tim Yeo saying that all French beef should be banned. It's their equivalents
in Germany who are saying that all British beef should be banned. We're
not going to be able to deal with this in nationalistic terms and it is
a mistake to try.
HUMPHRYS: You must be worried though
about this movement now in Germany. I mean it is building up isn't it?
BROWN: Well, I think it would be
absolutely wrong for the German government to try to impose a ban on British
beef through the date-based export scheme, but remember the quantities
of beef that we sold to Germany historically were very, very small...
HUMPHRYS: That's not the point
though is it, the size....
BROWN: It's not as if there's some
great practical issue being tested here
HUMPHRYS: No, but that isn't the
point is it, how much they buy from us. It's the message it sends. I
mean if we were to find that the French stick to their ban as they intend
to do clearly, the Germans manage to get it reinstated, then good heavens,
we're back to where we were.
BROWN: But the issue is to protect
the public throughout Europe, not try to get into a series of bilateral
trade wars, product by product and state by state. That would be a mistake,
and the solution will be found in a European Union context.
HUMPHRYS: Nick Brown, thank you
very much indeed.
And that's it for this
week. For those of you on the Internet don't forget our Web-site. Until
the same time next week, Good Afternoon.
22
FoLdEd
|